Can it be?

In my presentation on Thursday I brought up the idea of "I want to help" vs. "This cannot be."  I really like this ideology by Thomas Clark (it's not actually a quote by him, just a summary of this thoughts).  I used it in regards to openness, but there is a great variety of issues in which it could be used.  These issues can range from a long wait in a supermarket check-out line to the barbaric practice of slavery.  I will therefore be somewhat general at times in talking about these mindsets.


I feel with this ideology, there really is an option.  Not all issues will be nor should be answered with "This cannot be."  It is not the go-to answer.  It is a personal responsibility to evaluate whether support is appropriate and to evaluate which mindset is appropriate.  The issues that are answered with "This cannot be" are ones in which the a current characteristic of society is unacceptable compared to potential alternatives.

The analogy I think of for this, which was not actually all that controversial, is the initial usage of tin cans in the early 19th century.  The tin can was one of the great inventions of this period that even now has widespread usage.  Its obvious use was to increase food preservation efficiency, and the first tin can was patented in 1810, yet the first can opener was patented in 1858.  For decades, tin cans were opened with knives, chisels, or through other creative manners.  Yes, people could get their cans open, but why would anyone hack at a can with a knife when they could use something as simple as a can opener?  In this analogy the "I want to help" mindset would be to realize how hard it is to efficiently open cans and react by becoming good at opening cans with a knife.  The "this cannot be" mindset would be to realize that there has got to be an easier way and seeking for the way to do so.  I recognize that this is only one of the many ways


Both mindsets can potentially be supportive of revolution, but the "this cannot be's" tend to be the real leaders and pushers of movements.  These are those who stick it to the man.  But, are these revolutionaries anything without the "helpers" of the cause?  And when do the helpers become merely blind followers rather than reserved supporters?  


Revolution is word with a large range of possible connotations.  It can be perfectly noble or utterly wicked.  This reminds me too easily of the Matthew 7:18&20
          
           18: A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.  
          20: Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.


This ideally is what our mindsets and support against or for a movement must be based.  Yet, in many debates there is seemingly not a more righteous side to argue.   It then requires a conscientious effort to inform oneself enough about issues to make an informed opinion. 


In terms of open science, I do not have enough of an expertise to officially declare which of the two mindsets I have toward the idea, although I am for it.  My support of it includes the recognition that open science can be carried out well, and it can be carried out not so well.  I feel however that open science carried out well outperforms private scientific research that is carried out well.  The reservations associated with open science are legitimate ones, but they are possible to overcome.


I want to end with a semi-related excerpt that to me illustrates the nature of scientific research:  "Ultimately, if the researcher succeeds, a flood of colleagues will pave roads over the path laid, and those roads will be orderly and straight, taking an investigator in minutes to a place the pioneer spent months or years looking for."  (The Great Influenza, John M. Barry)

Presentation Links for Openness

Flow Chart

http://www.ijest.info/review-process.php

TED

http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_nielsen_open_science_now.html

Research Gate

http://www.researchgate.net/

Thomas Clark, British Abolitionist:

I Want to Help

vs.

This Cannot Be

Open Notebook Science

Start watching at 3:08, Stop at 5:58

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFL0vbUOjfo

-Shows how this form of open science is good for editing flawed data/procedures

Why We Choose ‘Open Science’

-Allen Institute using open science to accelerate research on brain diseases

-Discusses rationale, pros/cons, and process involved with choosing open science

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204630904577058162033028028.html

Better Means

Innovative business model that uses openness/equality between workers for efficiency

http://bettermeans.com/front/index.html

Cracking Open the Scientific Process

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/science/open-science-challenges-journal-tradition-with-web-collaboration.html?pagewanted=all

Passage from The Great Influenza, an account of the 1918 flu epidemic, author John M. Barry writes about scientists and their research.

Certainty creates strength. Certainty gives one something upon which to lean. Uncertainty creates weakness. Uncertainty makes one tentative if not fearful, and tentative steps, even when in the right direction, may not overcome significant obstacles.

To be a scientist requires not only intelligence and curiosity, but passion, patience, creativity, self-sufficiency, and courage. It is not the courage to venture into the unknown. It is the courage to accept—indeed, embrace—uncertainty. For as

Claude Bernard, the great French physiologist of the nineteenth century, said, “Science teaches us to doubt.”

A scientist must accept the fact that all his or her work, even beliefs, may break apart upon the sharp edge of a single laboratory finding. And just as Einstein refused to accept his own theory until his predictions were tested, one must seek out such findings. Ultimately a scientist has nothing to believe in but the process of inquiry. To move forcefully and aggressively even while uncertain requires a confidence and strength deeper than physical courage.

All real scientists exist on the frontier. Even the least ambitious among them deal with the unknown, if only one step beyond the known. The best among them move deep into a wilderness region where they know almost nothing, where the very tools and techniques needed to clear the wilderness, to bring order to it, do not exist. There they probe in a disciplined way. There a single step can take them through the looking glass into a world that seems entirely different, and if they are at least partly correct their probing acts like a crystal to precipitate an order out of chaos, to create form, structure, and direction. A single step can also take one off a cliff.

In the wilderness the scientist must create . . . everything. It is grunt work, tedious work that begins with figuring out what tools one needs and then making them. A shovel can dig up dirt but cannot penetrate rock. Would a pick be best, or would dynamite be better—or would dynamite be too indiscriminately destructive? If the rock is impenetrable, if dynamite would destroy what one is looking for, is there another way of getting information about what the rock holds? There is a stream passing over the rock. Would analyzing the water after it passes over the rock reveal anything useful? How would one analyze it?

Ultimately, if the researcher succeeds, a flood of colleagues will pave roads over the path laid, and those roads will be orderly and straight, taking an investigator in minutes to a place the pioneer spent months or years looking for. And the perfect tool will be available for purchase, just as laboratory mice can now be ordered from supply houses.

Not all scientific investigators can deal comfortably with uncertainty, and those who can may not be creative enough to understand and design the experiments that will illuminate a subject—to know both where and how to look. Others may lack the confidence to persist. Experiments do not simply work. Regardless of design and preparation, experiments—especially at the beginning, when one proceeds by intelligent guesswork—rarely yield the results desired. An investigator must make them work. The less known, the more one has to manipulate and even force experiments to yield an answer.

America: Historic Insourcing to Current Outsourcing

"We are the 99%" was named the quote of 2011.  The ever-increasing gap between the rich and the poor has been a very pressing issue in our country.  It is a real trend.  I believe that among other factors, this very present gap is caused by the outsourcing of jobs.  We have transformed from a nation to which foreign workers relocate themselves into a nation that relocates work to foreign workers.  Those who migrated here built this powerful country into what it is, and now sending work away is starting to tear it down.  It only makes sense for us to personally support domestic companies that remain domestic.  

As U.S. companies outsource work, the owners of these companies definitely benefit now that they can provide lower wages and less restricting working environments to foreign workers. Meanwhile, the American workers and managers that helped these companies get how far they've come.  Now they are left jobless as more and more of these types of jobs are depleted.  Preventing outsourcing legally would infringe upon the individual rights of the owners.  But, we as customers should seek business with companies that work to preserve domestic jobs.




Contrast this with the 19th century.  This period was marked by the largest scale immigration the world has ever seen.   Instead of the U.S. rushing jobs to workers elsewhere, workers were rushing to jobs here.  The U.S. felt such a surge of arriving immigrants because there were jobs to be had and jobs to made.  At the time it was because of economic inequality in Europe (those who migrated were generally poor, outcast, and/or looking for a better life) that immigrants sought this land.


As I said in my personal intro, I am a native of North Carolina, as are my parents.  Historically, North Carolina has had a major portion of its economy based in textiles.  However, because of cheaper labor forces in other countries, almost all of North Carolina's textile production has been relocated to countries like Mexico, India, and Pakistan.  The businesses themselves may actually remain in the state.


A company in Duram, NC by the name of Mitts Nitts is one of the few exceptions.  This company, which is actually owned by my uncle, sells on wholesale all of the clothing that it makes here on U.S. soil.  Many clients are drawn toward the product lines of Mitts Nitts because of its domestic roots.

We need to have the attitude of these clients.  Any company that is willing to keep jobs here in the U.S. is swimming upstream and they deserve reasonable support for doing so.  I am not saying that I am a part of the Occupy Wall Street Movement.  They  admittedly don't even suggest solutions.  I do recognize the problem, but I also have a solution in mind.  It is my opinion that in order to turn this around, it will require individual initiative and changes in government policy.  It would be blatantly unconstitutional to force companies to keep work on U.S. soil.  However, we can make favorable climates for those companies who do remain domestic.

I actually came upon my next bit of information after I started thinking about my stance on this topic.  It is from President Obama's  State of the Union address, and it was surprising because I agreed completely with him when I usually do not.  He said,

         

               "We will not go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, bad debt and phony financial profits. Tonight, I want to speak about how we move forward, and lay out a blueprint for an economy that's built to last -- an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers and a renewal of American values."

His blueprint included a tax policy that rewards companies that create jobs in America and eliminates tax breaks for those who ship jobs overseas.  An additional point I would add is to loosen restrictions on working condition codes, which Obama may not be in favor of, especially openly since he is running for reelection.

If we can redirect the current trend of outsourcing back to insourcing, we can reverse the widening the economic gap.  Insourcing is what built this country and is what has maintained it.  Maybe we could even have other countries outsource to us.

 Also, be sure to view this link about how Apple outsourced its production to China.
  Apple Outsourcing

Should we pay to use Facebook or should Facebook pay to use us?

Or YouTube.  Or Flickr.  Or Google.  As you continue to post information in various forms, you are most likely seeking some form of response.  Views, shares, attention, likes, comments.  You do this on a very regular basis, and your doing so provides these entities with their most essential assets: publicity and intellectual-property.  It is through combining these two assets that these free-to-use websites can actually make much of their money through targeted advertising.

 

One of my books talks about how much we actually provide to social media sites.  They are completely dependent on us.  Anil Dash, a vice president with Six Apart posed a question that stuck out to me: "Should Flickr compensate the creators of the most popular pictures on its site?"  I actually really considered this question and did so considering that compensation didn't have to be a monetary value.  But I ultimately realized the answer in any case is no further compensation is needed for either party.

The internet now is a "culture of generosity."  Users willingly take the time to provide information and publicity while the social media sites provide an open outlet to do so.  The users and social media sites obviously both benefit from the exchange.  As long as terms are legal, the benefits between the users and sites are beautifully and exactly equal.

In the case of the Flickr question, yes, the creators of the popularized pictures did bring publicity to the site, BUT the amount of publicity the pictures brought to Flickr is equal to what Flickr as a medium brought to the pictures.  The more I think about this, the more I hear the Newton's Third Law:  To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction.

I feel that Adam Smith's concept of "the invisible hand" included in The Wealth of Nations is very present here.  Our economy is self-correcting when exercised legally, including in the realm of the internet.  Users of social media unavoidably give up their right not to be used.  The key is that if the process is legal and both parties is willing, how can it not be fair?

FREE IPOD!! (brand new, still in its case!)

My dad currently works for Apple as an accountant and as a bonus he was given 20 free 64gb itouches, and he gave me a few of them and I just... oh wait, you actually looked at my blog post, good. 

I doubt that anyone actually came to this post thinking that they would get an iPod.  You're probably here because you know that scamming people with digital media is very prevalent, and you were interested because you thought my blog would be about that.  Well, kinda. 

There is so much information available to us that it is difficult to discern between what information we really care for and what information is not worth reading.  

We could spend lifetimes reading information that is just a waste of our time.  What is it that sets apart an article we read from the seemingly endless lists of others?  As seekers of information and as informers, it is important for us to know why people are brought to read what they read and why they continue or stop reading what they've stumbled upon.

Accessibility is the first important characteristic of effective information.  Whether it is of use or not, information has to be accessible if anyone is ever going to read it.  Websites pay thousands of dollars to be listed early on search engine results.  Recommendations from peers will also get the sought-after views, readers, hits, or customers.  The phrase "If you build it, they will come" does not always apply to digital media (unless you are Google).

Obviously, a potential reader will not decide to read information based on accessibility alone.  From the title and scanty description provided, a reader must somehow be convinced that the information is so important that he or she needs to take the time to look at it.  People naturally want information that is personal, applicable, and/or controversial.  The more the potential reader thinks they need this information the better.  This doesn't have to be deceptive (like me) in nature.  People write about what they think is important, and they should want others to think the same. 

The second half of the battle is maintaining a reader.  Maybe I'll make another post about that...